Concealing Risks

What do the present financial crisis and U.S. Middle East policy have in common?

Behind the financial crisis was a well-practiced mechanism for concealing risk. The risk was there, and it was constantly growing, but it could be disguised, repackaged and renamed, so that in the end it seemed to have disappeared. Much of the debate about foreign policy in the United States is conducted in the same manner: policymakers and pundits, to get what they want, conceal the risks.

In the case of the Middle East, they concealed the risks of bringing Yasser Arafat in from the cold; they concealed the risks of neglecting the growth of Al Qaeda; and they concealed the risks involved in occupying Iraq. It isn't that the risks weren't known -- to someone. The intelligence was always there. But if you were clever enough, and determined enough, you could find a way to conceal them.

Concealed risk doesn't go away. It accumulates away from sight, until the moment when it surges back to the surface.

But concealed risk doesn't go away. It accumulates away from sight, until the moment when it surges back to the surface. It did that after Camp David in 2000, when the "peace process" collapsed in blood; it did that on 9/11, when hijackers shattered the skies over New York in Washington; and it happened in Iraq, when an insurgency kicked us back. This tendency to downplay risk may be an American trait: we have seen it in U.S. markets, and now we see it in U.S. election-year politics. In Middle East policy, its outcome has been a string of very unpleasant surprises.

A case in point is radical Islam. One would think that after the Iranian revolution, the assassination of Anwar Sadat, the terrorism of Hezbollah, the Rushdie affair, the suicide attacks of Hamas and Al Qaeda, the Danish cartoons, and a host of other "surprises," that we would not be inclined to ignore the risks posed by radical Islam. And yet there are batteries of interpreters, analysts and pundits whose principal project is to obscure if not conceal the risks. Here are some of the most widespread variations on the theme:

Worried about Ahmadinejad? Pay him no mind. He doesn't really call the shots in Iran, he's just a figurehead. And anyway, he didn't really say what he's purported to have said, about wiping Israel off the map. What the Iranians really want is to sit down with us and cut a deal. They have a few grievances, some of them are even legitimate, so let's hear them out and invite them to the table, without preconditions. Iran isn't all that dangerous; it's just a small country; and even their own people are tired of the revolution. So pay no attention to Ahmadinejad, and pay no attention to the old slogans of "death to America," because that's not the real Iran.

Worried about the Palestinian Hamas? You've got it wrong. They merely represent another face of Palestinian nationalism. They aren't really Islamists at all: Hamas is basically a protest movement against corruption. Given the right incentives, they can be drawn into the peace process. Sure, they say they will never recognize Israel, but that is what the PLO once said, and didn't they change their tune? Anyway, Hamas controls Gaza, so there can't be a real peace process -- a settlement of the big issues like Jerusalem, refugees, borders -- without bringing them into the tent. So let's sit down and talk to them, figure out what their grievances are -- no doubt, some of them are legitimate too. And let's get the process back on track.

Troubled by Hezbollah? Don't believe everything they say. They only pretend to be faithful to Iran's ayatollahs, and all their talk about "onwards to Jerusalem" is rhetoric for domestic consumption. What they really want is to earn the Shiites their rightful place in Lebanon, and improve the lot of their aggrieved sect. Engage them, dangle some carrots, give them a place at the table, and see how quickly they transform themselves from an armed militia into a peaceable political party.

NO HARM TALKING

And so on. There is a large industry out there, which has as its sole purpose the systematic downplaying of the risks posed by radical Islam. And in the best American tradition, these risks are repackaged as opportunities, under a new name. It could just as easily be called appeasement, but the public associates appeasement with high risk. So let's rename it engagement, which sounds low-risk -- after all, there's no harm in talking, right? And once the risk has been minimized, the possible pay-off is then inflated: if we engage with the Islamists, we will reap the reward in the form of a less tumultuous Middle East. Nuclear plans might be shelved, terror might wane, and peace might prevail.

The engagement package rests upon a key assumption: that these "radical" states, groups, and individuals are motivated by grievances.

The engagement package rests upon a key assumption: that these "radical" states, groups, and individuals are motivated by grievances. If only we were able to address or ameliorate those grievances, we could effectively domesticate just about every form of Islamism. Another assumption is that these grievances are finite -- that is, by ameliorating them, they will be diminished.

It is precisely here that advocates of "engagement" are concealing the risk. They do so in two ways. First, they distract us from the deep-down dimension of Islamism -- from the overarching narrative that drives all forms of Islamism. The narrative goes like this: the enemies of Islam -- America, Europe, the Christians, the Jews, Israel -- enjoy much more power than the believing Muslims do. But if we Muslim return to the faith, we can restore to ourselves the vast power we exercised in past, when Islam dominated the world as the West dominates it today. The Islamists believe that through faith -- exemplified by self-sacrifice and self-martyrdom -- they can put history in reverse.

Once this is understood, the second concealment of risk comes into focus. We are told that the demands of Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran are finite. If we give them a concession here, or a foothold there, we will have somehow diminished their demand for more concessions and footholds. But if their purpose is the reversal of history, then our gestures of accommodation, far from enticing them to give up their grand vision, only persuade them to press on. They understand our desire to engage them as a sign of weakness -- an attempt to appease them -- which is itself an enticement for them to push harder against us and our allies. And since they believe in their narrative of an empowered Islam with the fervency of religious conviction, no amount of insistence by us that we will go only so far and no further will stop them.

Our inability to estimate this risk derives in part from our unwillingness to give credence to religious conviction in politics. We are keen to recast Islamists in secular terms -- to see them as political parties, or reform movements, or interest groups. But what if Islamists are none of these things? What if they see themselves as soldiers of God, working his will in the world? How do you deal with someone who believes that a paradise awaits every jihadist "martyr," and that the existence of this paradise is as real and certain to him as the existence of a Sheraton Hotel in Chicago? Or that at any moment, the mahdi, the awaited one, could make a reappearance and usher in the end of days? How do we calculate that risk?

THE REAL RISKS

So what are the real risks posed by Islamic extremism? If I were preparing a prospectus for a potential investor in "engagement," or a warning label on possible side effects of "engagement," they would include these warnings:

With regards to Iran. The downside risk is that Iran will prolong "engagement" in such a way as to buy time for its nuclear program -- perhaps just the amount of time it needs to complete it. At the same time, it will use the fact of "engagement" with the United States to chisel away at the weak coalition of Arab states that the United States has cobbled together to contain Iran. If "engagement" is unconditionally offered, Iran will continue its subversive activities in Iraq and Lebanon until it receives some other massive concession. Indeed, it may even accelerate these activities, so as to demand a higher price for their cessation. If the United States stands its ground and "engagement" fails, many in the Middle East will automatically blame the United States, but by then, military options will be even less appealing than they are today.

In regards to Hamas. The downside risk is that "engagement"-- even if conducted indirectly through various mediators -- will be the nail in the coffin of Mahmoud Abbas, and of any directly negotiated understandings between Israel and the Palestinians. It is true that Israelis and Palestinians aren't capable today of reaching a final status agreement. But the present situation in the West Bank allows for a degree of stability and cooperation. This is because Israel stands as the guarantor against Hamas subversion of the West Bank. "Engagement" with Hamas would weaken that guarantee, signal to Palestinians once again that terrorism pays, and validate and legitimate the anti-Semitic, racist rhetoric that emanates daily from the leaders and preachers of Hamas. It might do all this without bringing Israeli-Palestinian peace even one inch closer.

In regards to Hezbollah. The downside risk is that "engagement" will effectively concede control of Lebanon to an armed militia that constitutes a state within a state. It will undermine America's pretension to champion civil society and pluralism in the most diverse Arab state. It will constitute the final rout of the beleaguered democracy forces within Lebanon, which have been consistently pro-American. It will compound the unfortunate effects of the 2006 summer war, by seeming to acknowledge Hezbollah as the victor. And it might do all this without bringing about the disarming of a single Hezbollah terrorist, or the removal of a single Iranian-supplied missile from Lebanon.

One would have to be a relentless pessimist to believe that all the downside risks I have outlined would be realized. But every serious advocate of "engagement" should acknowledge the risks, and explain their strategy for mitigating them. And it isn't enough to say: don't worry, we're going to practice "tough engagement." Perhaps we might. But most of the risks arise from the very fact of engagement -- from the legitimacy it accords to the other party.

Let's not let the new slogan of engagement mislead us.

In the Middle East, the idea that "there's no harm in talking" is entirely incomprehensible. It matters whom you talk to, because you legitimize your interlocutors. Hence the Arab refusal to normalize relations with Israel. Remember the scene that unfolded this past summer, when Bashar Asad scrupulously avoided contact with Ehud Olmert on the same reviewing stand at a Mediterranean summit. An Arab head of state will never directly engage Israel before extracting every concession. Only an American would think of doing this at the outset, and in return for nothing: "unconditional talks" is a purely American concept, incomprehensible in the Middle East. There is harm in talking, if your talking legitimates your enemies, and persuades them and those on the sidelines that you have done so from weakness. For only the weak talk "unconditionally," which is tantamount to accepting the enemy's conditions. It is widely regarded as the prelude to unconditional surrender.

The United States cannot afford to roll the dice again in the Middle East, in the pious hope of winning it all. Chances are slim to nil that the United States is going to talk the Iranians, Hamas or Hezbollah out of their grand plan. Should that surprise us? We "engaged" before, with Yasser Arafat, and we know how that ended. We downplayed radical rhetoric before, with Osama bin Laden, and we know how that ended. We assumed we could talk people out of their passions in Iraq, and we know how that ended.

It is time to question risk-defying policies in the Middle East. The slogans of peace and democracy misled us. Let's not let the new slogan of engagement do the same. The United States is going to have to show the resolve and grit to wear and grind down adversaries, with soft power, hard power and will power. Paradoxically, that is the least risky path -- because if America persists, it will prevail.

Related Articles:

About the Author

Martin Kramer is the Wexler-Fromer Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Adelson Institute Senior Fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, and Olin Institute Fellow at Harvard University.

Visitor Comments: 9

(9)
Baruch Miller,
December 2, 2008 1:24 AM

Iran's detent is enormous risk

Of all the above, the greatest risk is Iran's seemingly gentle disposition, when it is clearly a cover-up for time to develop their nuclear arsenal. Somehow, all of Iran's neclear facilities must be demolished, and very soon.

(8)
ruth cheeseman,
November 30, 2008 5:31 PM

RISKS....

its a jungle out there, even without wars and terorism. so, this is a tremendes worry for mankind across the world, especially for poor little Israel. i find this article to have logical points. would there be difficult to mak this argument/debate known to all mankind? starting with direct post of logicdebate to world politicians and than to the public by a mass media. its about time we start to talk, understand and respect one another. we should have a 'global government', not a UN who is unilateral whenever it suits them and involve only 'their friends'. a nutral body of represntaytive from each and every country in this earh to be involved without pregidigm in all issues off political, ecomomics, health and humniterian to be solved openly for the public to see. if 'you' sinned, the public will vote on suitable punishment.

(7)
Yoram Hoffman,
November 30, 2008 2:39 PM

Well spoken, but US is not strong enough to fight on all the fronts. It needs to recruit some allies. Maybe Russia even, if victory is to be achieved

(6)
eva dahre,
November 30, 2008 12:23 PM

Absolutelly the BEST analyse ,

We are alone !It´s devastating to realise that world is not aware of what is coming up!!!

(5)
shalom pollack,
November 30, 2008 11:25 AM

Its not about land

Wonderful piece.
In a word, this conflict never was about land.
Once we finally understand this, all the blunders of the past decades are put into sharper focus. What is incredible is that our "elites" will never admit to the bloody folly they pushed us into and still base their world view (and ego) on continueing this march to self destruction. A nornal country would bring them to justice.

(4)
ruth,
November 30, 2008 10:49 AM

Spread this article

This is an excellent article which clearly explains why "engagement talks" are very risky. This article should be in all the main media outlets.

(3)
Pierrette,
November 30, 2008 9:22 AM

I take it this was written before the murderous expedition in India!
When are Western governments going to wake up to the threats posed by the radical Islamists? Only fools think that once Iran has develloped the bomb, it will not use it on Israel!!
It reminds me of the years of Hitler'' rise when Daladier of France and Chamberlain of England made a pact with the madman and said:
"Now we''ll have peace in our times!".
Nearly 100 millions lost lives (six millions Jews amongst them)and decades later- we are now back to square one.
When are we going to wake up?

(2)
Graham Senior-Milne,
November 30, 2008 9:05 AM

Truth at last

The most devasting analysis of the Middle-East 'peace process' I have yet read. You are right, they only talk to extract what we will give, they will give nothing themselves. They think we are weak fools - and they are right.

(1)
Dr. Alex Pister,
November 30, 2008 9:03 AM

What "Radical" Islam

It’s amazing to those of us who do see this as a war of good vs. evil how otherwise so called “experts” like Mr. Kramer continue to use the terms “Radical Islam” and/or “Islamists”. It’s as if survey after survey after survey that shows the vast majority support of all Muslims globally for terrorism were never taken. As if the lion’s share of Muslims don’t want a complete and total world wide Muslim Caliphate ruled by Sharia Law. The very accusation Mr. Kramer hurls at the rest of the “pundits” is his own undoing. There is no such thing as Radical Islam or Islamists as he insists on putting it. They are just terms utilized by those who wish to be politically correct and avoid being labeled as tarring all Muslims with the same brush. This is no less a concealment of severe risk than all the other concealed risks Mr. Kramer refers. With the deepest of respect to Mr. Kramer, who is limited by his man made rules, I and just a few others have to categorically disagree with his “strategy” for resolution. We Jews who believe that “all is in the hands of G-d” look at the world from a different view. You can have the M16’s, F15’s, Merkava 4’s, or as Mr. Kramer puts it: “soft power, hard power and will power”. But these man made weapons won’t solve a thing. Make no mistake about it: this absolutely is a war of G-d’s will. And it is the Muslims against the Jews who are playing out the battle of evil against good. And the only real solution begins with the acknowledgement of the problem of the state of the Jewish People today. With Jewish ignorance running at 90% plus the Toirah warns us of the consequences. We’ll be chased away in the thousands by a half dozen or so of our enemies. And if we continue to not heed the warnings of G-d, He’ll tighten the squeeze to ever higher levels. Once we acknowledge this truth we can begin to implement the solution. That solution has absolutely nothing to do with man made weapons. That solution is to put in at least as much effort, resources, finances, and yes will power to bringing the Jewish People back to Judaism as we put in to all the “guns and ammo”. For the cynics out there who say it’s impossible to bring back the Jewish People we answer: G-d didn’t create us so that we could suffer our problems interminably with no potential solution ever. G-d created us for us to bring G-dliness and G-d’s message out there to the rest of mankind. We Jews are the Chosen People to spread this message as a beacon of light to both ourselves and the rest of the world. How? Why not start by printing up one of the outstanding articles found on the Aish.com website and faxing it to a fellow Jew. Pick a time when they’re more likely to be receptive. A Bris milah, a Bar Mitzvah or wedding, before Passover or Rosh Hashanah, or during a shiva period. Pre-empt it with a phone call. Tell them to at least look at it. Ignore all the criticisms and accusations of trying to indoctrinate or “Aish” others. Try it. You might be surprised at the results! My family and I have had the privilege of putting in the effort to help make a difference. It’s been hard and relentless but extremely satisfying. Over the years I think it’s fair to say we’ve had success. If all of us rolled up our sleeves we could change the world. That’s not me saying this, it’s the Rosh Yeshiva, the Dean and Founder of Aish Hatorah Rabbi Noach Weinberg saying this. It’s worth listening to him.

I'm told that it's a mitzvah to become intoxicated on Purim. This puzzles me, because to my understanding, it is not considered a good thing to become intoxicated, period.

One of the characteristics of the at-risk youth is their use of drugs, including alcohol. In my experience, getting drunk doesn't reveal secrets. It makes people act stupid and irresponsible, doing things they would never do if they were sober. Also, I know a lot about the horrible health effects of abusing alcohol, because I work at a research center that focuses on addiction and substance abuse.

Also, I am an alcoholic, which means that if I drink, very bad things happen. I have not had a drink in 22 years, and I have no intention of starting now. Surely there must be instances where a person is excused from the obligation to drink. I don't see how Judaism could ever promote the idea of getting drunk. It just doesn't seem right.

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Putting aside for a moment all the spiritual and philosophical reasons for getting drunk on Purim, this remains an issue of common sense. Of course, teenagers should be warned of the dangers of acute alcohol ingestion. Of course, nobody should drink and drive. Of course, nobody should become so drunk to the point of negligence in performing mitzvot. And of course, a recovering alcoholic should not partake of alcohol on Purim.

Indeed, the Code of Jewish Law explicitly says that if one suspects the drinking may affect him negatively, then he should NOT drink.

Getting drunk on Purim is actually one of the most difficult mitzvot to do correctly. A person should only drink if it will lead to positive spiritual results - e.g. under the loosening affect of the alcohol, greater awareness will surface of the love for God and Torah found deep in the heart. (Perhaps if we were on a higher spiritual level, we wouldn't need to get drunk!)

Yet the Talmud still speaks of an obligation on Purim of "not knowing the difference between Blessed is Mordechai and Cursed is Haman." How then should a person who doesn't drink get the point of “not knowing”? Simple - just go to sleep! (Rama - OC 695:2)

All this applies to individuals. But the question remains - does drinking on Purim adversely affect the collective social health of the Jewish community?

The aversion to alcoholism is engrained into Jewish consciousness from a number of Biblical and Talmudic sources. There are the rebuking words of prophets - Isaiah 28:1, Hosea 3:1 with Rashi, and Amos 6:6, and the Zohar says that "The wicked stray after wine" (Midrash Ne'alam Parshat Vayera).

It is well known that the rate of alcoholism among Jews has historically been very low. Numerous medical, psychological and sociological studies have confirmed this. The connection between Judaism and sobriety is so evident, that the following conversation is reported by Lawrence Kelemen in "Permission to Receive":

When Dr. Mark Keller, editor of the Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, commented that "practically all Jews do drink, and yet all the world knows that Jews hardly ever become alcoholics," his colleague, Dr. Howard Haggard, director of Yale's Laboratory of Applied Physiology, jokingly proposed converting alcoholics to the Jewish religion in order to immerse them in a culture with healthy attitudes toward drinking!

Perhaps we could suggest that it is precisely because of the use of alcohol in traditional ceremonies (Kiddush, Bris, Purim, etc.), that Jews experience such low rates of alcoholism. This ceremonial usage may actually act like an inoculation - i.e. injecting a safe amount that keeps the disease away.

Of course, as we said earlier, all this needs to be monitored with good common sense. Yet in my personal experience - having been in the company of Torah scholars who were totally drunk on Purim - they acted with extreme gentleness and joy. Amid the Jewish songs and beautiful words of Torah, every year the event is, for me, very special.

Adar 12 marks the dedication of Herod's renovations on the second Holy Temple in Jerusalem in 11 BCE. Herod was king of Judea in the first century BCE who constructed grand projects like the fortresses at Masada and Herodium, the city of Caesarea, and fortifications around the old city of Jerusalem. The most ambitious of Herod's projects was the re-building of the Temple, which was in disrepair after standing over 300 years. Herod's renovations included a huge man-made platform that remains today the largest man-made platform in the world. It took 10,000 men 10 years just to build the retaining walls around the Temple Mount; the Western Wall that we know today is part of that retaining wall. The Temple itself was a phenomenal site, covered in gold and marble. As the Talmud says, "He who has not seen Herod's building, has never in his life seen a truly grand building."

Some people gauge the value of themselves by what they own. But in reality, the entire concept of ownership of possessions is based on an illusion. When you obtain a material object, it does not become part of you. Ownership is merely your right to use specific objects whenever you wish.

How unfortunate is the person who has an ambition to cleave to something impossible to cleave to! Such a person will not obtain what he desires and will experience suffering.

Fortunate is the person whose ambition it is to acquire personal growth that is independent of external factors. Such a person will lead a happy and rewarding life.

With exercising patience you could have saved yourself 400 zuzim (Berachos 20a).

This Talmudic proverb arose from a case where someone was fined 400 zuzim because he acted in undue haste and insulted some one.

I was once pulling into a parking lot. Since I was a bit late for an important appointment, I was terribly annoyed that the lead car in the procession was creeping at a snail's pace. The driver immediately in front of me was showing his impatience by sounding his horn. In my aggravation, I wanted to join him, but I saw no real purpose in adding to the cacophony.

When the lead driver finally pulled into a parking space, I saw a wheelchair symbol on his rear license plate. He was handicapped and was obviously in need of the nearest parking space. I felt bad that I had harbored such hostile feelings about him, but was gratified that I had not sounded my horn, because then I would really have felt guilty for my lack of consideration.

This incident has helped me to delay my reactions to other frustrating situations until I have more time to evaluate all the circumstances. My motives do not stem from lofty principles, but from my desire to avoid having to feel guilt and remorse for having been foolish or inconsiderate.

Today I shall...

try to withhold impulsive reaction, bearing in mind that a hasty act performed without full knowledge of all the circumstances may cause me much distress.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...